Thread: Hypothesis of infinite universes

I have decided to write down my hypothesis of the post big bang. My hypothesis states that there was a universe prior to this universe but was destroyed. The destruction was caused by the big crunch and the sub atomic particles formed together to cause a big bang. This is rather a easy way to describe it but I will become more descriptive of my hypothesis.

The beginning, Space is infinite while the universe is created by the big bang. The energy was there as it is in a isolated system. It remains constant but cannot be created. This the conservation of energy. The Big Bang explains how the universe expanded into it’s present state. When the universe’s expansion reverses and the universe collapses. It will end in a black hole singularity.

Quantum theory says that "virtual pairs" of particles sometimes wink into existence from the fabric of space itself. These particles quickly cancel each other out and vanish. But if a pair of particles appear just outside a black hole's horizon, one may fall inside, never to make it outside again. If the one on the outside doesn't fall through the horizon, then the particles can't cancel each other out. In essence, that "steals" a little bit of mass from a black hole. Over countless billions of billions of billions of years, the mass loss could become substantial enough to cause the black hole to vaporize. Material would come out, but not in its original form -- only as energy and subatomic particles. The Quantum theory described by Stephen Hawkings.

These subatomic particles would cause rapid expansion which would be the big bang. How many universes prior to this are unknown, it could be infinite which would be the reason I proposed it as infinite universes.

Probably the oldest theory for an existence of the Universe, can be found in Hindu mythology, some say going back 2500BC in written material. Though several versions exist, one is a living entity, which has expanded and imploded several times. Other theories have suggested this, many suggesting a crunch in the final days, through the years.

New would be the implosion angle into a black hole. Are you then saying it will never again restart? If as you suggest, it formed from matter crunched, possibly several times, why would the next time be into a black hole?

Big Bang Theory in its infancy (early 1900's) also suggested, the expansion would some day end and would need to contract from gravitational forces.

Most today, do not think expansion will ever end, kind of a new meaning for endless, eternity or infinity. Big Bang as I understand their theory, now feel, that space itself came from the singularity. The tiny, little whatever contained all that we now call our universe, in different form and just began to expand. Space then part of that tiny universe and now ours and is expanding into an infinity of what they call *nothingness*.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Probably the oldest theory for an existence of the Universe, can be found in Hindu mythology, some say going back 2500BC in written material. Though several versions exist, one is a living entity, which has expanded and imploded several times. Other theories have suggested this, many suggesting a crunch in the final days, through the years.

New would be the implosion angle into a black hole. Are you then saying it will never again restart? If as you suggest, it formed from matter crunched, possibly several times, why would the next time be into a black hole?

Big Bang Theory in its infancy (early 1900's) also suggested, the expansion would some day end and would need to contract from gravitational forces.

Most today, do not think expansion will ever end, kind of a new meaning for endless, eternity or infinity. Big Bang as I understand their theory, now feel, that space itself came from the singularity. The tiny, little whatever contained all that we now call our universe, in different form and just began to expand. Space then part of that tiny universe and now ours and is expanding into an infinity of what they call *nothingness*.

A very well written post Jackson. I have heard that if a lot of Dark energy exists in the universe their will be a big crunch. If their is little then it will expand forever. If you know how much Dark Energy is in the universe I would like to know, it is rather interesting.

No one knows how much dark energy exist, or even if there is such a force. Alan Guth, proposed a Negative Pressure Field, in 1981, causing an expansion and in the late 90's, dark matter and energy began to take hold as theory. NASA, has estimated 22% of space is filled with Dark matter and 74% is dark energy. The rest lose hydrogen/helium, our stars and misc. hard elements. One half of one percent in stars, to give a rough referance.

Personally, Big Bang is hard for me to accept, the need for such energy being essential for certain explanation. This what makes expansion eternal. My first question would be; If eternal expansion, then DE would have to be self creating to maintain that pressre...Also, since connected to Big Bang Theory, Dark Energy would have to be part of any singularity, which would IMO, add many other questions.

Inflation has also been used for the Steady State Theory. Here, they were assuming expansion was and simply gave another cause for expansion.

IMO; Expansion, if true is of no importance and likely a natural decrease in universal size happens as often in, cosmology times. Our observations and analysis are based on minutes/hours (time exposures) or even the 100 years of somewhat distant observation. Another possibility, is that the universe itself is infinite (with out end) which I have trouble with as well.
Am sure you already know, expansion is often used when multiverse are brought into the discussion.

Even in an ageless format/model, no matter formed in our Universe is over 10-20 Billion years old. Matter, 99.99 as stars, burn out and reform as new stars, recreating all the motion and energy to continue what has been.

Originally Posted by jackson33

No one knows how much dark energy exist, or even if there is such a force. Alan Guth, proposed a Negative Pressure Field, in 1981, causing an expansion and in the late 90's, dark matter and energy began to take hold as theory. NASA, has estimated 22% of space is filled with Dark matter and 74% is dark energy. The rest lose hydrogen/helium, our stars and misc. hard elements. One half of one percent in stars, to give a rough referance.

I know. It is very interesting.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Personally, Big Bang is hard for me to accept, the need for such energy being essential for certain explanation. This what makes expansion eternal. My first question would be; If eternal expansion, then DE would have to be self creating to maintain that pressre...Also, since connected to Big Bang Theory, Dark Energy would have to be part of any singularity, which would IMO, add many other questions.

Very little is known about Dark Energy. I apologize but I do not know if it is self replicating. I do agree that Dark Energy is a very young theory of the expansion of the Universe.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Inflation has also been used for the Steady State Theory. Here, they were assuming expansion was and simply gave another cause for expansion.

IMO; Expansion, if true is of no importance and likely a natural decrease in universal size happens as often in, cosmology times. Our observations and analysis are based on minutes/hours (time exposures) or even the 100 years of somewhat distant observation. Another possibility, is that the universe itself is infinite (with out end) which I have trouble with as well.
Am sure you already know, expansion is often used when multiverse are brought into the discussion.

I see. I don't think that the universe is infinite either. There are many other explanations on our current expansion.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Even in an ageless format/model, no matter formed in our Universe is over 10-20 Billion years old. Matter, 99.99 as stars, burn out and reform as new stars, recreating all the motion and energy to continue what has been.

Yes stars do reform after burn out.

Originally Posted by Dirtybird77

The largest exporter of Logic, reason, and ass kickings.

I think you miss spelled asskissing!

If the Universe is infinite, is it true to say it is the only tangible thing we know to be infinite.

Originally Posted by sak

Originally Posted by Dirtybird77

The largest exporter of Logic, reason, and ass kickings.

I think you miss spelled asskissing!

I know. I forgot to change that. I always make some mistake when typing. :/

Originally Posted by Dirtybird77

Originally Posted by sak

Originally Posted by Dirtybird77

The largest exporter of Logic, reason, and ass kickings.

I think you miss spelled asskissing!

I know. I forgot to change that. I always make some mistake when typing. :/

lol
U again misspelled it! It is ‘asking’

First, I misread your post. I thought you said, "asskicking". Second is that you are being very immature with your post. If you are going to resort to name calling then please leave. This is the adults forum. Recess is over kiddo, go back to class.

call me spectularly uninformed; apart from reading science fiction and watching pop science documentaries, but if you accept one of the explainations of the weekness of gravity (namely that gravitons are not bound to the membrane that our universe exists on )

and accept also that our membrane exist in close proximity to many other membranes in the bulk

doent this not suggest an explaination for the nature of dark matter?

isnt it suggestable that the mapping of dark matter and its lensing effect on light, and its reinforcing effects the spin of a galaxy can all be explained by the reciprocal effects of neighbouring membranes with their own topology of galaxy sized clusters of mass which just like membrane bleed gravitons across the bulk to interact with our membrane?

the 'mapping' of dark matter then become a map not of the density of DM in our universe but the influx of gravitons resulting from a combination of the topology of mass in nearby membranes and also the proximity of said membranes to ours.